EDUCATION TIPS

Showing posts with label higher education. Show all posts

State Policy and College-Level Courses in High School

In the past couple decades, the number of high school students participating in college-level courses has increased drastically. A new NCES studyestimates this number to be 2.0 million students in 2010-2011, an increase from 1.2 million students in 2003-2004 (an increase of 66.6%). The same study estimates that 82% of high schools have students participating in college-level courses, often referred to as dual credit, dual enrollment, or concurrent enrollment (I use the term dual credit for consistency).

The proliferation of dual credit translates into more students participating in college and earning college credits before they graduate high school. As dual credit offerings have expanded, questions have been raised related to dual credit quality, the extent to which a larger pool of students is adequately prepared for college courses in high school, and the extent to which dual credit courses are of college rigor. In many instances, high school faculty members, who often serve as adjunct college faculty, teach dual credit courses on high school campuses. There is a lot to unpack with dual credit, but I want to focus on the relationship between dual credit and state policy.

With colleagues from Indiana University and Lake Land College, I just completed a review of dual credit state policies commissioned by the Higher Learning Commission (HLC). Our purpose was to examine state policies in all 50 states and better understand the relationship between state policy and quality. The report, which is publically available on the HLC website, is being digested and considered by the HLC for future action.

One issue surfaced by our study is the tension between ‘quality’ and ‘access,’ both of which state policies address in various ways across states. Although the purpose of our study was not to examine this tension, our descriptive results lend themselves well to future analysis of this tension. For example, we found that nine states have state policies that either require or encourage dual credit programs to adhere to the quality standards of the voluntary accreditation organization, the National Association for Concurrent Enrollment Partnerships (NACEP). Several other states have quality-related policies such as Illinois (Illinois’ policy is the “Dual Credit Quality Act”) or Indianaand Tennessee (Chapter 15, Section 49-15-101), whose policies have many state-level provisions focused on quality standards. So there is very clearly a sector of state policies whose purpose is focused on quality.

At the other end of the spectrum are policies that emphasize access to college courses in high schools. We found that the preponderance of state policies had established policies about which students are eligible to participate in dual credit. These policies often restricted access based on limiting dual credit participation to students in certain grade levels, students with adequate standardized test scores, or students with appropriate course-prerequisites. However, nearly half of the state policies have eligibility waivers (e.g., Kentuckyand Missouri) where student certain eligibility requirements can be waived for students as determined by the college faculty or Chief Academic Officer, for example. In some states where students are required to pay tuition, however, state policies provide financial assistance to low-income students (e.g., Connecticutand Indiana). So state policies appear to have different approaches to dual credit access, restricting access for some students based on academic ability and ability to pay, while also providing flexibility in some cases.

The is accumulating evidence about the impact of dual credit (for example, see here, here, and here), suggesting that dual credit participation is related to desirable outcomes such as college enrollment, college persistence, and to a lesser extent, college completion. One missing strand of research, however, is the extent to which state policies related to quality and access influence both which students participate and the outcomes of these students. Although we have observed state dual credit policies expand in the last decade (compared to a 2005 study), including an increased emphasis on promoting quality, there is little evidence about the extent to which specific state policies contribute to student success, increase college access, or even improve student learning. It is this area that is desperately needed for future research to inform our public policies so they work in the best interest of students.

By: Jason Taylor

Performance-Based Funding in Higher Education: An Emerging State-Based Approach

Performance-based funding has become a buzzword in American higher education, particularly among foundations and state policy makers. State legislators, anticipating significant reductions in budgets, have reduced budgets for higher education, often across the board, regardless of institution type. Often cited as a means for maximizing the investment into institutions of higher education, this funding mechanism keeps funding at a set level but requires institutions to meet certain benchmarks in order to receive full funding.

What is performance-based funding?

Performance-based funding consists of an established formula by which an institution operates in order to receive funding, largely based on “the output-side of universities and colleges. Funding then is tied to the ‘products’ of the teaching and research activities of higher education institutions.” Outputs typically consist of variables such as credits awarded, retention and graduation rates, employment outcomes of graduates, and research production of institutions. Most prominently, it is the production of credentials that drives recent discussions on performance-based funding, as states, funding agencies, and even the federal government emphasize a ‘completion agenda’ fixated on credentialing more students, and reducing the time-to-degree. (Note: the links provided are only a few examples. There are many others.)

Although performance-based funding is nothing new, it has been emerging as an alternative method for funding institutions, particularly within higher education, compared to a more traditional model of funding. Jongbloed and Vossensteyn describe the traditional approach as “a negotiations-based approach, in which a budget request drawn up by an institution is decided upon after negotiations between the budget authorities and the higher education institution.” Typically at the fore of these negotiations are the inputs of higher education institutions: enrollments, demographics, and academic preparation. While an institution’s performance may be cited during the negotiation process, the funding is decided based on an institution’s budget and the negotiated funding. In recent years, this has presented an issue, as some states have struggled to come up with promised funding. My state, Illinois, is no exception. There are several times the state underpaid its agreed-upon funding (also hereand here).

Where is performance-based funding being used and discussed?

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), 10 states have some sort of performance-based funding in place, with five more states in the process of transitioning to that sort of funding mechanism. 18 states have had formal legislative discussions around the use of performance-based funding in higher education, though no formal policies have yet been developed. Many of the 10 states with current performance-based funding measures have done so only recently, having passed legislation or implemented policies in 2011 or later.

One thing that seems prominent among most of these states is that performance-based funding accounts for a small percentage of total funding to institutions. In Tennessee, where performance-based funding can be traced back to the 1970s, having such a small level of funding contingent upon institutions’ production goals had no discernible impact. As a result, the state began moving toward using a much larger proportion of funding as part of the performance-based metrics. Kysie Miao, from the Center for American Progress, also emphasized that “enough of an institution’s funding should be determined by performance to compel actions that would significantly change institutional behavior.” Jobs for the Future (JFF) published a report in April 2012 to highlight the changing trend toward performance-based funding through the case of Ohio’s implementation. In their executive report, they suggest a number of recommendations for those considering changes to their funding structure, including: consideration of both educational progress in addition to college completion, taking into account the institutions that focus on nontraditional students, and ensuring the appropriate level of buy-in from key stakeholders.

It is no surprise that discussions of performance-based funding have come up in my research with the Office of Community College Research and Leadership (OCCRL), as two of the projects I work on revolve around institutional and state policies that encourage production of more credentials and helping students receive degrees in a timely way. In one such project, where OCCRL provides the research component to the Credit When It’s Due (CWID) initiative, funded by several foundations, states have received support to produce reverse transfer degrees, wherein students who have transferred may transfer credits back to a two-year institution in order to fulfill requirements of an associate degree. Several of the states funded by this initiative have indicated already-existing systems of performance-based funding that could be further informed and refined using CWID policies.

There is little doubt that performance-based funding will become one standard means in which state policy bodies encourage growth and policy change of higher education institutions in the future. The overarching suggestions from multiple reports and sources seem to suggest that performance-based funding may be an effective means for encouraging the appropriate priorities and foci in higher education, provided they are executed in a deliberate and meaningful way. What is yet to be seen is how effective such funding mechanisms can be, in large-scale implementation.

By: Collin Ruud

Student Debt

Today it is almost impossible to discuss college affordability without also considering the impact of affordability on the level of student indebtedness. This blog post considers recent data from the College Board and the Project on Student Debt about current student debt levels and offers links to relevant articles and policy proposals about student debt.

Figure 1 shows average total indebtedness of students who graduated with a bachelor’s degree from a public four-year institution. In 1999-2000, bachelor’s degree recipients had $11,100 on average in student loan debt. However, not all students take out loans and, in 1999-2000, 54% of bachelor’s graduates had debt. Of those with debt, the average borrower left school with $20,500 in student loans. By 2010-11, there was an increase in the average indebtedness of bachelor’s degree recipients such that the average debt level was $13,600. There also was an increase in the percentage of students who borrowed, which increased to 57%. Among bachelor’s degree recipients who borrowed, average indebtedness was $23,800 in 2010-11 – an increase of $3,300 of average debt since 1999-2000.

Figure 1: Average Total Debt Levels of Bachelor’s Degree Recipients, Public Four-Year Colleges and Universities, in 2011 Dollars, 1999-2000 to 2010-11

Source: The College Board, Trends in Student Aid 2012, Figure 12A

These average debt levels vary by state and Figure 2 shows average debt levels among students who have debt by state. In 2011, average debt levels ranged from a low of $17,227 in Utah to a high of $32,440 in New Hampshire. Twenty-two states had average debt levels over $25,000 and five states had average debt levels under $20,000. There is also variance in the percentage of graduates who have debt as shown in Figure 3. In 2011, Hawaii had the lowest percentage of graduates with debt (38%) and North Dakota had the highest (83%). Over 70% of students borrow in six states, but there is only one state (Hawaii) with fewer than 40% of students borrowing.

Figure 2: Average Debt of Those with Loans, by State, Class of 2011

Source: Project on Student Debt (2012). NR = Not Reported.

Figure 3: Percentage of Graduates with Debt, by State, Class of 2011

Source: Project on Student Debt (2012). NR = Not Reported.

These trends towards increasing both the number of borrowers and levels of indebtedness have made student debt an issue of public concern that both federal and state policy will need to address. The shift to the direct lending system has made it possible for all students to now opt-in to alternative repayment plans that can help to ensure manageable student loan debt levels for borrowers. However, more policy work needs to be done. For instance, eliminating the need to opt-in to alternative repayment options and making a repayment plan like the income contingent option the default option for all borrowers would help ensure that borrowers are able to manage their debt loads and are better able to avoid defaulting on their loans. In addition, the higher debt levels and larger student loan default rates of students who attend for-profit institutions needs to be addressed as a public policy issue (see for instance #10 on the American Association of State Colleges and Universities’ Top 10 Higher Education State Policy Issues for 2013). Likewise, a new bill [H.R. 6674] introduced by Tom Petri (WI-R) in the U.S. House would enable the Internal Revenue Service to directly collect student loan payments. This idea has the potential to streamline the debt collection process, to lower the costs of loan servicing, and to provide borrowers with a reasonable way of avoiding student loan default. Allowing a tax collection agency to manage student debt repayment has been in operation in other countries for years. For instance, Australia has always used The Australian Taxation Office to collect debts from the Higher Education Contribution Scheme. A similar debt collection process deserves careful consideration in the United States. In addition, student loan debt does not impact all students equally and can constitute a special hardship for certain groups of students, such as those who drop out before completing their degrees. These special populations need particular attention in policy changes regarding student loans. Finally, the issue of student loans in bankruptcy needs to be addressed. Student loans are one of the few types of debt that are not dischargeable in bankruptcy and more consumer protections are needed. Overall, the need for thoughtful policy is pressing because the increased reliance on student loans coupled with the increase in student loan levels is already restricting educational access and limiting opportunity to learn for countless individuals.
By: Jennifer A. Delaney

Doing Less with More: the Social Significance of For-Profit Higher Education in the US

Portraying higher education as a business is the dominant metaphor for higher education in our time. By now it is commonplace to consider students as consumers, faculty as producers, degrees and publications as products, while universities labor to protect their brand.

To some extent, US higher education has always functioned at least partially as a market, with institutions vying for faculty, students, and funding. Clark Kerr defines responsiveness to the market as a fundamental characteristic of institutions in the American system, and calls it a “gift of history”. However, in concert with the historical US marketization of education has been the longstanding philosophical tradition from Thomas Jefferson, to John Dewey and more recently to others such as Henry Giroux, of the assumption that democracy demands education as a public good.

In response to the encroachment of corporate power into the public sphere of education, Girouxcalled for educators and others to mobilize a civic dialogue providing an alternative conception of the meaning and purpose of public education in resistance to the rise of corporate influence. For-profit higher education represents perhaps the clearest manifestation of this encroachment, as the for-profit higher education institution is a company or corporation. Despite the staggering growth in the for-profit higher education industry in recent years, alternative civic dialogues are not often voiced within the academy. Instead, the criticisms of proprietary institutions are more often located in the popular press, documentaries, or Congressional reports, and tend to center on issues of student loan repayment, graduation rates, and admissions activities. These are essentially unfair business practices, with the larger, far more significant concerns of race, power, and politics, left largely unexplored. Within many of these narratives, avoiding fraudulent behavior seems to be the sole standard that society demands of higher education. In fact, some voices advocate for public and other institutions to emulate the “efficiencies” of the corporate model.

Yet, if we look at the for-profit sector of higher education, it is clear that the exponential growth in the industry is far from evenly distributed. Rather, it has occurred primarily in groups that are traditionally underrepresented in higher education. Currently, the University of Phoenix is the largest educator of minority students. In fact, for-profit institutions enroll a disproportionate share of non-Asian minority, low-income, and female students. The for-profit industry hails this accomplishment as “access,” yet questions about what exactly their students have gained access to seem to go unasked.

Publicly traded, and yet publicly funded through federal and state student loans, this sector of higher education demonstrates what waits at the bottom of the slippery slope of marketization in higher education. Absorbing roughly 30% of the federal student loan funds plus multiple private loans in many cases, and then spending approximately 25% of the budget on marketing, the for-profit sector demonstrates the incongruity of shareholder profits and the public good (see Harkin Report). Standard criticisms of the for-profit model highlight the higher tuitions, low graduation rates, high percentages of part-time faculty, high student loan defaults, and frequent indictments for fraud. Yet, by allowing business practices to become the center of the debate, critics have seemingly acquiesced to the corporate instrumentalist vision of education, at least for large numbers of minorities and non-traditional students who enroll in such programs, accepting that for those students at least, getting a job upon graduation that pays enough to service student loan repayments is enough. Elements of racism and even a kind of Social Darwinism permeate some of this discourse, where prepackaged curriculum taught by part-time faculty in abandoned store fronts, or online, counts as “access to higher education” for minority students who for reasons that remain unstated, “could not be served” by traditional public institutions. Capacity within the public system is often cited as the justification for tolerating this system, but such an excuse rings hollow in a nation that originated massification of higher education and is widely regarded as the leader in higher education worldwide.

For their part, public institutions espouse diversity and tout carefully calculated minority and traditionally underserved students. However, there is little to no consideration for the issues raised by a profit driven industry feeding off the raging need for higher education left unmet by the current public and private non-profit system. Moreover, research on for-profit institutions and the students they serve is scant. Policing only the “consumer protection” fundamentals of the programs seems to assuage the sense of responsibility of the academy, public institutions, government, and society in general to rectify the exclusions from civic engagement that the for-profit, instrumentalist manifestation of higher education perpetuates.

Giroux called for “educators [to] confront the march of corporate power by resurrecting a noble tradition, extending from Horace Mann to Martin Luther King Jr, that affirms education as a political process encouraging people to identify themselves as more than consuming subjects, and democracy as more than a spectacle of market culture” (2001). While the fraudulent practices of some proprietary institutions are certainly egregious, the issues of “gainful employment” must not be allowed to dominate the discussion. Instead, the debate should also consider true issues of access centered on larger social realities of power and oppression. The debate should consider alternate conceptions of higher education in America that would provide access for all. Without resistance to the continued vocationalization of higher education for minority and other non-traditional students, without demands for noncommercial goals for higher education including minority and non-traditional students of all ages, and without insistence on the integral and potentially transforming role of faculty as more than messengers delivering a pre-packaged product of mass produced curriculum, democracy and the institutions originally designed to serve it, have been reduced to mere spectacle in this market culture.

By: Allison Witt

Freedom to be College Ready? Reforming Community College Developmental Education

I am fresh off the fall conference season having most recently attended the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE), the leading scholarly organization on all things postsecondary education. The conference theme was “Freedom to Learn,” which ASHE President Anna Neumann eloquently defended in her keynote and further challenged the association membership to consider how teaching and learning touches their work, including work in the policy domain. This challenge could not be more central to the predominant policy conversations and research related to college readiness and developmental education. Inspired by several sessions at the ASHE conference and my own work on college and career readiness and developmental education, here I focus on developmental education (also known as ‘remediation’) reform and the role of teaching and learning.

Developmental reading, writing, and math courses, offered at both community colleges and universities in some states (but more often at community colleges), have garnered a significant degree of policy attention. This is, in part, because accumulating evidence suggests that many students participate in developmental education but do not progress into college-level credit course or complete college; this is especially the case at community colleges. For example, data from Complete College America show that approximately 51% of all students at public 2-year colleges in 33 states need developmental education. Of those students who need developmental education, 62% complete developmental education but only 22% complete a college-level course (in the associated academic discipline) within 2 years and even fewer graduate. Other data from community colleges participating in the Achieving the Dream initiative show similar disappointing results.

The point I want to emphasize here, and what the evidence suggests, is that existing developmental education programs and policies are not working and students are not succeeding. Though existing K12 reforms may reduce the need for developmental education courses at colleges, as many as 40% to 60%of incoming community college students are enrolled in developmental coursework and colleges must act now to ensure these students are college ready. More troubling is that we know students of color and low-income students are overrepresentedin the total population of developmental education students, so these students are disproportionately affected by existing policies. The question left unanswered by this body of research and other quasi-experimental research focused on testing and placement policies (see here, here, and here), however, is why? Why is developmental education not working and what is needed to improve student success?

As I was reminded by the ASHE conference theme, we need to better understand how and why developmental education students are or are not learning in the classroom to better inform practice and policy. Let me offer a few theories or explanations and related solutions from the literature—explanations that are relevant to the teaching and learning process. One theoryis that traditional developmental education instruction is decontextualized from the students’ lives and experiences, and proposes the use of contextualized or integrated forms of instruction can improve student learning through both cognitive and effective mechanisms. Another explanationis that there is a fundamental misunderstanding of expectations that faculty and students have of one another, and proposes to create stronger faculty learning environments to support community college faculty. A third theorysuggests the sequential and multi-semester structure of developmental education sequences is too lengthy and takes students too long to complete, and proposes accelerating the pace of instruction as a solution. And a fourth explanationsuggests that traditional face-to-face instruction is disengaging, and proposes the use of technology be integrated into the classroom, where students use self-directed technologies or receive supplementary technological instruction.

This is not an exhaustive list by any measure, particularly relative to the sweeping state and national strategies penetrating community college developmental education. The similarity among these four ideas, however, is a set of pedagogical issues about the relationship between content and student experiences; the assumptions and expectations of faculty and students in the classroom; the pace at which students learn and faculty teach; and the instructional environment and platform of developmental education courses. Returning to Anna Neumann’s point in her ASHE Presidential address, state and national policy conversations often ignore these pedagogical issues, especially in the policy context of college completion and college readiness. If we believe teaching and learning are important as researchers, and more importantly, as educators, we need to look for intersections between teaching and learning and our policy work. I would argue we need to elevate the relevance of teaching and learning in our research, and the models and policy solutions we research or evaluate need to make pedagogical assumptions explicit.

I do not pretend these are easily achievable goals for researchers, but I extend Anna Neumann’s invitation to those studying developmental education. I particularly extend it because those students who matriculate to college in developmental education are often those that have already been failed by educational systems and by society, and we need to know why these students have been failed and then work toward not reproducing that failure in developmental education. These students deserve the freedom to learn and to be college ready.

By: Jason Taylor

Earlier this year, Zócalo Public Square asked several higher education policy experts: Will America’s public universities remain competitive with elite private universities in their teaching and research? Several researchers and experts responded (you can view the full discussion here). Among them was Forum Fellow and University of Illinois Assistant Professor, Dr. Jennifer Delaney.

Dr. Delaney’s response:

Only if funding is properly restored–which is unlikely. Both public and private institutions suffered in the last recession, but there is increasingly cause to be concerned about a growing stratification between elite public and private universities.

State support for public higher education tends to be cyclical. However, the length of time to recovery following a cut in state general appropriations has been increasing. Whereas recoveries were swift in the 1980s, they slowed in the 1990s and stagnated in the 2000s. Past public campus leaders could be reasonably assured that state appropriations would eventually be restored; however, today, cuts may be permanent. Going forward, the problem is likely to get worse, since most states face structural budget deficits, and public higher education is one of the largest discretionary–and therefore cuttable–spending areas in most state budgets.

Elite public institutions can generate funds from non-state sources (such as tuition, federal grants, private giving, etc.), and political leaders can make different choices about state investments in public higher education. However, privates are likely to recover fully as endowments rebound, while publics will continue to face challenging futures with regard to state support. As such, there is likely to be increased stratification in wealth between elite publics and privates, which portends disparities in teaching and research quality.

This article was originally published at Zócalo Public Square.